Inadequacies in Slayer Statutes

Many states have enacted laws to prevent evil doers from profiting from their crimes. According to a 2005 law review article, only forty-two states have slayer statutes, with only eleven of those following the approach found in the Uniform Probate Code. Typically, slayer statutes treat slayers as predeceasing their victims, allowing the slayer’s inheritance to pass to his or her heirs. Maryland takes a harsher stance on slayers, preventing a slayer’s heirs from profiting from the slayer’s actions.

Though slayer statutes exist in most states, there are many gray areas when it comes to a statute’s coverage. For example, slayer statutes tend to inadequately cover occurrences of crimes of passion, reckless homicide, manslaughter, and assisted suicide. Further, these statutes do not typically address the result of a slayer dying before a court’s rule on culpability (as was the case of Kenneth Lay who died of a heart attack before a court could sentence him on his securities fraud indictment in Enron’s collapse), or a finding of liable in a civil action but innocence in a criminal action (as was the case of O.J. Simpson).

Further complicating slayer statutes’ applicability are the current estate planning trends of trust creation, life insurance policies, Medicaid planning, and family limited partnerships. Slayer statutes prevent a slayer from inheriting his or her victim’s wealth after the victim’s death, but modern estates typically distribute assets over a lifetime as opposed to after an individual’s death.

Additionally, Slayer statutes do not govern a slayer’s ability to profit from his or wrongful acts, such as profiting from a book written about his or her murders. States began to enact Son of Sam statutes after book publishers offered serial killer David Berkowitz (Son of Sam) large amounts of money to publish a book on his life and his murders. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually ruled that New York’s Son of Sam statute violated the First Amendment. Forty states have since revised their respective Son of Sam statutes.

Along those same lines, slayer statutes typically do not address the prospect of a slayer profiting from selling his or her murder related collectables or “muderabilia” as these items have come to be known. For example, the Boston Strangler attempted to sell choker necklaces he made and to record a song entitled “Strangler in the Night.” Other noteworthy murderabilia include Jeffery Dhamer and Ted Bundy action figures, paintings by serial killer John Wayne Gacy, and personal items of the Unabomber.

The recent death of Osama bin Laden sheds further light on the gaps in slayer statutes. Bin Laden cost the United States several trillion dollars in estimated damages as a result of his terrorist attacks. Though bin Laden could have anywhere from $20 to $300 million in assets, it is unlikely that any of the victims of bin Laden’s terrorist attacks will ever recover any of it. Since bin Laden died before being adjudicated in court, criminal proceedings are no longer available. Additionally, it is likely that bin Laden’s assets are held in offshore trusts, keeping his assets free from American jurisdiction.

For more information on slayer statutes, see Robert L. Moshman (Attorney at Law, New York and New Jersey), Evil Deconstructed: The Search for Osama bin Laden’s Wealth, May 31, 2011.

Special thanks to Jim Hillhouse (WealthCounsel) for bringing this article to my attention.